Background
The parties own apartments in a 16-unit condominium building in Tel Aviv. Yaakov and Orly Zelinger own one apartment, while the respondents own the other 15. A decade-long dispute arose over a TAMA 38/2 project under which the existing building would be demolished and rebuilt. The Zelingers said they did not oppose redevelopment itself, but refused to sign the agreement made with the developer. They instead wanted an arrangement under which they would purchase construction services without transferring their building rights to the developer.
Most of the owners sued before the Senior Land Registration Supervisor under section 5A of the Reinforcement of Shared Houses Against Earthquakes Law, 2008. The Supervisor approved the project, finding that the building rights were jointly owned by all apartment owners and that a different transaction for the Zelingers would therefore require every owner’s consent. She also found that their proposed construction-services arrangement was no longer available and that their refusal lacked a reasonable basis under section 5A. The possibility that a better bargain might be obtained was insufficient, particularly because the existing agreement benefited them.
The Tel Aviv–Jaffa District Court extended the time for the Zelingers’ appeal but rejected it on the merits on February 22, 2026. It held that the Supervisor’s decision was well supported by the evidence and testimony and addressed the owners’ arguments in detail. The Zelingers then sought permission to appeal to the Supreme Court, arguing that the case raised broader questions about balancing majority decisions concerning common property against minority rights and about transactions involving the purchase of construction services from a developer.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Daphne Barak-Erez denied leave to appeal without requesting a response, under Regulation 148A of the Civil Procedure Regulations, 2018. The Court held that the application did not come close to satisfying the demanding standard for a third-instance appeal.
The dispute was rooted in its particular facts and presented no question of general principle warranting Supreme Court review. Nor had the applicants shown a serious miscarriage of justice. The Court emphasized that both lower tribunals had issued reasoned decisions after examining all of the applicants’ arguments in depth. Because no response had been requested, the Court made no order for costs.
Key Takeaways
- Characterizing a condominium dispute as a conflict between majority rule and minority rights does not by itself create a principled question justifying a third-instance appeal.
- The Supreme Court left undisturbed the findings that the building rights were jointly owned, that a separate arrangement for one apartment required unanimous consent, and that seeking a potentially better deal was not a reasonable ground for refusing the project.
- Leave to appeal after two reasoned rulings requires more than case-specific disagreement; applicants must identify a broader legal issue or a serious miscarriage of justice.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the finality of fact-specific rulings approving TAMA 38 redevelopment over an individual owner’s objection. Minority owners cannot obtain another appellate review merely by reframing objections to a particular transaction as an abstract question about property rights.
For redevelopment participants and counsel, the ruling also underscores that alternative deal structures must be legally and practically available. A preference to retain building rights and purchase construction services separately will not necessarily constitute reasonable opposition where the rights are jointly held, unanimous consent is absent, and the proposed alternative is no longer viable.